Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-16 06:17:57

I would posit that since WW2, we have never fully disarmed.

Depending on how one defines it, you have a point. However, one could also argue that WWII ended not in 1945 with the defeat of Germany and Japan but in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of the countries they occupied.

What you are seeing with the public perception is the result of people realizing that this war, Iraq, was not the grave threat it was made out to be.

Particulars of Iraq aside, it's deeper than that. Americans in general have lost the stomach to take casualties or sustain a long-term military action. Everything is now seen through "Nam glasses". Somalia, things got a little tough and we pulled out. No one talks about Grenada or Panama much because we were in and out, mission accomplished. Bosnia, we fought it with airpower almost exclusively. It's touted as a success but lasting stability is still in doubt, we're still there and we spent millions of dollars of precision guided ordnance blowing up logs.

Point being, our successes aren't as pristine as we think (before forgetting them) and our failures aren't as dismal. Any time we have troops on the ground the Nam glasses go on yet air campaigns aren't even considered fighting, so public perception seems.

Even in the case of Afghanistan there were loud voices opposing action. Months into it there was widespread talk of "exit strategies" and quagmires. We did in months what the mighty Soviet war machine couldn't accomplish in ten years and we need an exit strategy from the quagmire of Afghanistan?

Then comes Iraq, quagmire talk round two. Bah, we've triumphed against much greater difficulty.

The problem though, is that we've come to expect little "microwave wars" that fit in a television season. If the sequel to Desert Storm runs long, out come the Nam glasses, guaranteed to make every military action look hopeless and ten times bloodier than it is. The same would apply regardless of the threat, and all our enemies know it. That is why Iraq is so important. Whether justified or not we're there now, and we can't cement the perception that America is a paper tiger that runs at first blood. If we do, we'll pay dearly for it.

Until President Chamberlain (D) bows to Chinese offers of non-agression while they annex Taiwan and eye Japan.

clark · 2005-06-16 06:33:54

Even in the case of Afghanistan there were loud voices opposing action. Months into it there was widespread talk of "exit strategies" and quagmires. We did in months what the mighty Soviet war machine couldn't accomplish in ten years and we need an exit strategy from the quagmire of Afghanistan?

There are always loud voices arguing that war is not the answer. So what? The public accepted and understood the need to act there.

Iraq though, in the begining, when we were all told of WMD's and we "knew" where they were, and we didn't have any other choice, we supported the action. Now as time progresses, we find out that the rationale for invasion- the one first peddled by the President, was a lie.

Sure some good is coming out of it, but the problem is that we were asked to pay a price for something we saw as neccessary for entirely different reason. How can you fault the public for not thinking democracy in Iraq is worth the same price?

The right thing, done for the wrong reasons, is ultimetly undermining of itself.

The American public is usally supportive when they feel their leaders are being on the level. When they are not, well, support disappears.

Iraq is important now only because we went in there in the first place. It's not about democracy, it's about not being defeated by a bunch of insurgents. We need to save face.

Palomar · 2005-06-16 06:35:23

*Of course America hasn't fully disarmed. Name one nation in the history of mankind which has ever fully disarmed willingly. Once power is attained it won't be let go of; it either has to self-corrupt/destruct or be overthrown.

America isn't the first and won't be the last.

It'd be foolish to give up power for the simple fact that someone else will be oh-so ready to snatch it up and use it next (and who knows how they'll handle it).

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-16 06:49:27

It'd be foolish to give up power for the simple fact that someone else will be oh-so ready to snatch it up and use it next (and who knows how they'll handle it).

Then conflict is the only solution.

If power cannot be relinquished, then it must be taken, because even sharing power would be to undermine your own position.

That dosen't bode well for democracy or human rights.

It seems to me that some of our greatest social advances have been when individuals see the value of relinquishing power, or sharing their power. [shrug]

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-16 06:55:41

There are always loud voices arguing that war is not the answer. So what? The public accepted and understood the need to act there.

Yes, but the more important section of the sentence you quoted deals with the "exit strategy" and "quagmire" handwringing that went. And it wasn't just Hollywood kooks and pundits, but elected officials as well. Too many people are engaging in the revisionist lie that everyone was behind Afghanistan and we all knew it was going to work out, but Iraq screwed everything up.

On a related note, notice how we don't hear much about Afghanisatn these days? Just attacks in Iraq. Could it be that Afghanistan is not being reported becasue things are going fairly well? And if so, could it be that many good things happening in Iraq aren't be reported as well?

Rhetorical of course. The answer is in the affirmative.

The American public is usally supportive when they feel their leaders are being on the level. When they are not, well, support disappears.

You really think it's that simple? We're the same hardworkin, gung-ho people we've alwasy been and all the blame belongs at the feet of a shitty President?

Iraq is important now only because we went in there in the first place. It's not about democracy, it's about not being defeated by a bunch of insurgents. We need to save face.

Aside from Strategic concerns in the Middle East, "saving face" as you put is of paramount inportance here. Beating the perception that Americans cut and run isn't just a matter of pride, it's a strategic necessity. The mightiest military in the history of humanity means nothing if our enemied don't believe we're capable of using it. If I'm a Chinese General or Muslim theocrat I'm working on plans revolving around absorbing a US attack, killing a bunch of them in the sort of dirty ground fighting they've forgetten about and waiting for them to go home with their tail tucked firmly between their legs.

clark · 2005-06-16 07:06:47

Yes, but the more important section of the sentence you quoted deals with the "exit strategy" and "quagmire" handwringing that went. And it wasn't just Hollywood kooks and pundits, but elected officials as well. Too many people are engaging in the revisionist lie that everyone was behind Afghanistan and we all knew it was going to work out, but Iraq screwed everything up.

A society of 260 million, and you want them all to agree? :laugh:

A majority then.

On a related note, notice how we don't hear much about Afghanisatn these days? Just attacks in Iraq. Could it be that Afghanistan is not being reported becasue things are going fairly well? And if so, could it be that many good things happening in Iraq aren't be reported as well?
Rhetorical of course. The answer is in the affirmative.

Oh no, I read about Afghanistan. Lemme see... same things being said: Iraq has required a draw down in Afghanistan forces. The central government has nominal control over the countryside. Large areas are controlled by warlords. Poppy production is a big issue and the central government may get it under control in 5 years or so. Reconstruction is slow due to the security concerns. American troops still occasionaly get killed there. People are tortured there by American forces.

Most of our forces are in Iraq, so it gets the lion share of attention. I would also suggest that it may be harder to report from Afghanistan given the stone-age conditions.

You really think it's that simple? We're the same hardworkin, gung-ho people we've alwasy been and all the blame belongs at the feet of a shitty President?

Another rhetorical question? Yes. Yes, I believe that the American people are good, and the blame lies directly at the feet of a very shitty president.

Aside from Strategic concerns in the Middle East, "saving face" as you put is of paramount inportance here. Beating the perception that Americans cut and run isn't just a matter of pride, it's a strategic necessity.

I understand. I am pointing out though that it wouldn't be an issue if we hadn't bet the farm on it, or if we had done it with the forces required. If we had planned for the aftermath or adjusted our strategy to the reality on the ground.

If I'm a Chinese General or Muslim theocrat I'm working on plans revolving around absorbing a US attack, killing a bunch of them in the sort of dirty ground fighting they've forgetten about and waiting for them to go home with their tail tucked firmly between their legs.

Lets not go down the Chinese WW3 road. They nuke the 3rd fleet, we nuke Beijing, yadda yadda yadda.

Palomar · 2005-06-16 07:13:48

On a related note, notice how we don't hear much about Afghanisatn these days? Just attacks in Iraq. Could it be that Afghanistan is not being reported becasue things are going fairly well?

*That's a good point. There has been a bit of recent news, i.e. the Taliban trying to regain a foothold...but I suppose that's not surprising. The media does often harp on the bad to the exclusion of the good.

Aside from Strategic concerns in the Middle East, "saving face" as you put is of paramount inportance here. Beating the perception that Americans cut and run isn't just a matter of pride, it's a strategic necessity. The mightiest military in the history of humanity means nothing if our enemied don't believe we're capable of using it. If I'm a Chinese General or Muslim theocrat I'm working on plans revolving around absorbing a US attack, killing a bunch of them in the sort of dirty ground fighting they've forgetten about and waiting for them to go home with their tail tucked firmly between their legs.

Seems many fellow Americans feel we're supposed to willingly lay our collective head on the chopping block.

Who will next be in control...and how will THEY use it?

Power should be used, not abused. But whoever thinks everyone will be willing to give up power and control, or at the very least "share" it around evenly and equitably, is probably dreaming at best and deluded at worst.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-16 07:18:23

A lot of men shared power with women. An obvious mistake engendered by delusional dreamers. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-06-16 08:13:50

I encourage everyone to google about what happens when you treat tubercolisis with steroids. A friend's elderly mother died because the doctors thought she had asthma and gave her steroids (which is appropriate for asthma). TB hevaen - - the disease exploded. On the other hand, treating asthma with antibiotics is harmless but ineffectual.

Have we diagnosed Islamo-fascism correctly and is our current course of treatment helping or hurting?

Of course to discuss this is treason since as no should dare criticize our Precious Leader. After all, he is following the guidance of his Heavenly Father and therefore cannot err.

= = =

Islamo-fascism breeds on martyrs and it is fueled by pride, male pride. Iraq also has a tribal culture which says "You kill my cousin, my pride requires that I kill one of yours" - - so what so we do? Shrug off collateral damage as unavoidable and inflict daily humiliations.

Hitting them weakly makes them stronger. Better off to not hit them at all than hit weakly. Kill one? Better to kill them all OR send in sufficient firepower that no one dare challenge us.

Ooops we can't suggest that Rumsfeld miscalculated, can we.

I read today about an American officer who wondered where all these suicide bombers are coming from. If my steroids/TB analogy is accurate, then I know exactly where they are coming from and there will be more and more volunteer martyrs until the last US solldier evacuates from the roof of the embassy just like in 1975.

= = =

Edit - - In the case of my friend's mother-in-law, the doctors kept insisting they knew what they were doing, how dare a lay person question their judgment.

Edited By BWhite on 1118931332

BWhite · 2005-06-16 08:16:41

PS - - Ignore my last post.

There isn't anything wrong except a biased media that hates George Bush. Yup that's the WHOLE story.

:;):

Palomar · 2005-06-16 08:22:46

Of course to discuss this is treason since as no should dare criticize our Precious Leader. After all, he is following the guidance of his Heavenly Father and therefore cannot err.

*Everyone here, IIRC, has criticized Pres. Bush at various times and on various points. And no one here quite fits your description, IMO.

The media can do what they want. He was re-elected, won the majority of votes by a respectable margin.

Everything's a bit odd these days, all around. This is primarily why I can't understand attempts at pigeon-holing matters...particularly the major matters.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-16 08:22:49

Good on him! Seriously.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … html]Frist admits he was wrong about Schiavo

Best move he's made in this whole tragic affair.

By the way, I saw a study that says that doctors and hospitals that apologize for medical errors are subject to substantially LOWER malpractice verdict. (And not the canned I'm sorry I got caught variety.)

The autopsy by a medical examiner in Florida, released Wednesday, showed irreversible brain damage, consistent with a persistent vegetative state.
"The diagnosis they made is exactly right. It's the pathology, I'll respect that. I think it's time to move on," Frist said on CBS' "The Early Show."

Edited By BWhite on 1118931987

BWhite · 2005-06-16 08:24:56

Of course to discuss this is treason since as no should dare criticize our Precious Leader. After all, he is following the guidance of his Heavenly Father and therefore cannot err.
*Everyone here, IIRC, has criticized Pres. Bush at various times and on various points. And no one here quite fits your description, IMO.
The media can do what they want. He was re-elected, won the majority of votes by a respectable margin.
Everything's a bit odd these days, all around. This is primarily why I can't understand attempts at pigeon-holing matters...particularly the major matters.
--Cindy

Yup and any public leader who questions Bush is vigorously assaulted by the White House media hit team.

If I am right, Bush is throwing gasoline on Islamo-fascism and half of America is cheering him on.

BWhite · 2005-06-16 08:40:15

Sorry for ruining the conversation. I'm just in a mood today.

Palomar · 2005-06-16 08:48:08

Of course to discuss this is treason since as no should dare criticize our Precious Leader. After all, he is following the guidance of his Heavenly Father and therefore cannot err.
*Everyone here, IIRC, has criticized Pres. Bush at various times and on various points. And no one here quite fits your description, IMO.
The media can do what they want. He was re-elected, won the majority of votes by a respectable margin.
Everything's a bit odd these days, all around. This is primarily why I can't understand attempts at pigeon-holing matters...particularly the major matters.
--Cindy
Yup and any public leader who questions Bush is vigorously assaulted by the White House media hit team.

*Bush doesn't like being disagreed with? I can think of folks on the opposite side who don't like being disagreed with either.

If I am right, Bush is throwing gasoline on Islamo-fascism and half of America is cheering him on.

According to the latest Poll out, Bush's job-approval rating (especially as regards the Iraq war) has dipped to a new low. A Gallup Poll, IIRC, which came out earlier this week.

Half of America is cheering him on? According to the Poll, no.

And January 2009 is 3-1/2 years away.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-16 09:18:37

I'm just riddled with typos today it seems. Ah well, after sleep deprivation and no food type as good you will not.

As I've said on countless occasions, the Administration is screwing up the occupation. Too soft in some places, too hard in others. But that doesn't mean the action itself was inherently wrong or that the fight is unwinnable.

Yes, any public figure that criticizes Administration policy is liable to get a hit from the White House if they are of any consequence. That's the game, it happens to anyone that openly criticizes anyone.

If I am right, Bush is throwing gasoline on Islamo-fascism and half of America is cheering him on.

Agreed, fighting it lightly is a good way to make it worse. But then so is not fighting it. That's the problem, the very people often calling for more troops are against it anyway and as long as their opponent is in charge of the effort, they seem to want it to fail.

To the Administration I'd say if you start to take Fallujah, take Fallujah. Don't pull any punches, kill everyone you have to kill as quickly as possible and be scary as all hell doing it. Then, when everyone left is waiting for some horror to be unleashed, be cool. Treat 'em with respect, help 'em out. But if someone gets too far out of line, snuff 'em. Maybe even let 'em have a symbolic win from time to time, but letting them think they're in control and them actually being in control are very different things.

To the critics, if you're going to call for more troops fine, I'll stand with you if the plan makes sense. But don't start bitching and moaning when we ask them to fight a war. Be honest about motives, anything less is going to get people killed, accomplish nothing and make you look like an ass in the process. Don't be like Dubya, jackasses.

In short, we're in now regardless of whether it was right or wrong. Those that want us to just cut and run, say so. Let's have an honest discussion about the merits and pitfalls. Those that want to continue and win this thing, let's have an honest discussion about what needs to be changed and how many skulls we still have to spill the contents of.

I still support the action, though not for all the same reasons hyped. I think it's winnable, and I have no stake in defending this Administration. Unfortunately it has become almost impossible for people to separate reason and partisanship.

Maybe we really do need big space lasers that can target installations like a videogame. We've lost the will to fight a real war these days.

Incidentally, anyone remember those estimates pre-invasion of the brutal street fighting expected in Baghdad, with US casualty estimates as high as 10,000? Looking back, things have gone remarkably smoothly.

Sorry, lost my Nam glasses.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1118935265

BWhite · 2005-06-16 09:23:40

My agreement that removing Saddam was itself a worthwhile and noble goal and my belief that this could have been accomplished successfully is

WHY I AM SO FREAKIN' ANNOYED!

Fair enough?

= = =

A sad note. If my friend's mother in law had been given antibiotics rather than steroids, she would probably still be alive.

This happened a few years ago, but the analogies to Iraq are really hitting me today.

Edited By BWhite on 1118935588

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-16 09:31:35

Fair enough?

Fair enough.

If only Congress worked this well.

Now as is so often the case, we're brought to what to do in the here and now with the scenario past events have given us.

I'm open to the idea of more troops, depending on where we're going to get them, what we're going to do with them, and why.

BWhite · 2005-06-16 10:00:41

Fair enough?
Fair enough.
If only Congress worked this well.
Now as is so often the case, we're brought to what to do in the here and now with the scenario past events have given us.
I'm open to the idea of more troops, depending on where we're going to get them, what we're going to do with them, and why.

What to do? Hell if I know. Juan Cole has written that we are just screwed, in Iraq.

We CANNOT just leave. The Baath remnants have the weapons and its either (a) Baath regain power with a new Saddam or (b) the Shia get Iranian help and win. We lose that either way.

We don't have an extra 300,000 troops and we have NO international legitimacy to seek more troops from anywhere else.

Partition? Lots of blood but a chance for stability in a few years and an ascendant Iran. Some Shia are already talking about a new state to be called Sumer.

A ten or fifteen year reconstruction of Iraq? Like space exploration that needs to be bi-partisan from the beginning with genuine power sharing (and rewards sharing) between the parties, otherwise its a political football. If we want as much blood and commitment from Harry Reid as from George Bush, then Reid needs close to 50% of the say-so and control.

A third party "War on Terror" ticket to elect someone like Colin Powell for 2008 through 2016 with his commitment to treat BOTH the Democrats and Republicans with absolute equality might work. (For example, each party gives the President a list of judicial nominees and he selects from each list, alternating equally.)

Powell probably is too politically damaged already so another general who is fed up and disgusted with the Bush strategy on terror but who otherwise leans GOP might work.

= = =

Edit - - I intended to say that the 2008 and 2012 elections proceed normally and if the die-hard Dems or GOP-ers win, so be it.

Edited By BWhite on 1118937854

BWhite · 2005-06-16 10:20:29

This http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/16 … ]delicious rant also captures how I feel:

Allegedly from a call in show (but it feels authentic to me):

Caller:"Thanks for talking about this. This is so important. We should be able to do whatever it takes to make ourselves safe. No limits. When I drop my 3-year-old off at day care in the morning, I need to know that he will be safe when I come to pick him up at night [Callers voice breaks]. I just can't imagine if anything were to happen to him."
Host: "Wow, that a powerful image. Thanks for reminding us what's at stake here."

As the writer responds:

If the War on Terror has clubbed our suburban senses to the point of collective psychosis, where we actually have people in the suburbs who believe that detaining random Muslims in Cuba without charges protects a three year old in a suburban Milwaukee day care, then the terrorists have won.
Almost FOUR years since 9/11.
Almost
Four
Years
And we still have raving testosterone-charged lunatics on the radio in nearly every medium sized town in the Midwest, getting huge ratings by lumping terrorists, random Muslims, religious radicals with dark skin, Iraqi civilians, al Qaeda, and Afghan teenagers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, into a single bucket labeled, "Those who would kill me without hesitation, and therefore should be detained so I can stop checking the lock on my suburban door three times in 15 minutes before going to bed," then the terrorists have most certainly won.
If we can defend "temporarily" putting aside four amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, in the name of a false sense of "Security", then the terrorists have won.

<snark> Besides, Daddy probably put the car seat in wrong and shouldn't be driving the kid anywhere, anyway. :;): </snark>

Edited By BWhite on 1118938862

clark · 2005-06-16 10:26:05

low casaulties?

What are the wounded in action/maimed numbers like?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-16 10:26:50

Point for point.

We CANNOT just leave. The Baath remnants have the weapons and its either (a) Baath regain power with a new Saddam or (b) the Shia get Iranian help and win. We lose that either way.

Agreed.

We don't have an extra 300,000 troops and we have NO international legitimacy to seek more troops from anywhere else.

We shouldn't rely too much on foreign troops anyway for long-term operations. No real argument except to quibble with choice of words and underlying assumptions.

Partition? Lots of blood but a chance for stability in a few years and an ascendant Iran. Some Shia are already talking about a new state to be called Sumer.

This I believe has potential and would be the direction I'd lean toward. Gains by Iran would have to be looked at as temporary, they are a point in the overall strategy. No sense being overly bound by a line some Brit drew on a map in the last century. Use the cultural rifts to our advantage and give them what they want at the same time.

A ten or fifteen year reconstruction of Iraq? Like space exploration that needs to be bi-partisan from the beginning with genuine power sharing (and rewards sharing) between the parties, otherwise its a political football.

Being realistic, not gonna happen. Too much bad blood on both sides and the political game won't allow it. Nothing stays out of the arena that long.

A third party "War on Terror" ticket to elect someone like Colin Powell for 2008 through 2016 with his commitment to treat BOTH the Democrats and Republicans with absolute equality might work. (For example, each party gives the President a list of judicial nominees and he selects from each list, alternating equally.)

Again, maybe in theory but isn't gonna happen. I could argue with the idea on it's own merits, but that's for another time.

Powell probably is too politically damaged already so another general who is fed up and disgusted with the Bush strategy on terror but who otherwise leans GOP might work.

This is a possibility. Perhaps the most realistic one.

So in essence, I'd say that it looks like we need new leadership but leadership that will prosecute the war in a well-planned manner. Not just clamp down harder, not cut and run. A candidate doesn't immdiately come to mind, but I'm sure a few good choices are out there.

Partitioning Iraq should not be off the table. If the flow of the peoples' will is toward independent states we're better served diverting it for our ends than trying to dam it up.

So the broad strokes are what we've both been saying for who knows how long.

Specifics? Insufficient information. Media coverage isn't exactly actionable intelligence. But a move towards partition would likely divert many of the tensions, though in some cases by directing them toward the competing groups at certain points of contention. Kirkuk, for example. If fighting dies down considerably, greta. If it turns to civil war between the factiosn, it's also good for us. Everyone seeing us as the enemy is what needs to be changed if we're to be successful.

The Iraqi army has to be used as a real and nominally independent force. If they believe they're being used as fodder before American troops arrive, better not to use them at all. When joint operations are successful, let them reap the credit.

No more barging into houses. Americans wouldn't stand for that, neither will Iraqis.

Well, we all get the idea. Once we get past the "we've lost, we're screwed" mentality I suspect we're all in much closer agreement than it often seems.

BWhite · 2005-06-16 10:29:11

low casaulties?
What are the wounded in action/maimed numbers like?

Hush!

As an aside, I read last night that the bad guys have started making shaped charge IEDs.

Oh, and my cousin from the suburbs of Detroit was wounded in Bahgdad last week. 2 weeks in the hospital and then back on patrol.

Edited By BWhite on 1118939430

BWhite · 2005-06-16 10:33:30

This I believe has potential and would be the direction I'd lean toward. Gains by Iran would have to be looked at as temporary, they are a point in the overall strategy. No sense being overly bound by a line some Brit drew on a map in the last century. Use the cultural rifts to our advantage and give them what they want at the same time.

Partition? With an acceptance of short term Iranian gains?

Knowing that deep down inside the Persians do not really want to be Islamic nut-jobs? bin Laden hates the Shia by the way, almost as much as he hates America.

Dude, you got yourself a deal.

See how easy this is?

= = =

And the price of Bush's adventure may be a nuclear Iran. ???

= = =

And another DailyKos gem comment:

Chickenshit wingers (4.00 / 37)
This is what always kills me about wingers. We're supposed to be the wimps, right? The cowardly, entitled idiot idealists?
I'm sitting here in New York, a city full of unrepentant libs and lefties who still crane their necks and say a silent prayer every time a plane passes low over downtown (well, yeah, okay, mostly we're atheists, but you get the idea). Four years on, everybody knows that New York, New York is still a wonderful target. But do they sit around pissing themselves for fear of the swarthy shadows in their heads? F#ck no.
So here's the Republican tough guy, a Midwestern Real 'Murcan and a regular Malboro Man when he's talking trash, but the topic turns to terrorism and he starts thinking maybe Osama's been spiking his bratwurst with anthrax or something. Before you know it, he's soiled himself and crawled under the sofa, wailing for his pappy to come save him from the terror bogeyman. "Please, Mr. AM radio host, tell daddy Bush to kick some Hajji ass and don't let 'em put the bad stuff in my bratwurst! Waah!"
Can you just see Osama's skinny ass sitting in a cave, hooked up to his dialysis machine, going, "Yes, World Trade Center attack was smashing success. Next, we strike at the heart -- Waukegan! Mwahhahaha! We will cut off their supply of mass-market cheese, cheap beer and kringle, and they will crumble like overdone falafel!"
Jesus. Someone needs to take these whiny little crybabies by their fat, pink ears and tell them to f#cking grow up.

Edited By BWhite on 1118940105

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-16 10:48:47

What are the wounded in action/maimed numbers like?

Higher. I recall the number 10,000 from not so long ago. Surely higher now, maybe 12,000 or 13,000.

Further, part of our low dead number is due to medical science more than anything. Injuries that would have been fatal not long ago aren't for the most part now.

Here's the thing though. Anyone wounded is counted, but wounded doesn't mean "legs blown off." Some are minor wounds, bullets wounds, shrapnel, that sort of thing. Not pleasant, but nothing you couldn't get in most large American cities.

Oddly enough, quite a few wounded soldiers choose to go back. Not just the relatively minor wounds, "patch up, back to the front" type but those that have lost limbs. A few amputees have re-enlisted, passed the physical tests and gone back on duty. I doubt they believe it's as screwed as some like to think.

Of course for every one of them you can find one who just wants to go home, to hell with the mission.

But hell, we could avoid all our casualties by just nuking the whole place, Kabul to the West Bank. Blame Israel for it, the UN seems to hate them even more than us.

Dude, you got yourself a deal.
See how easy this is?

Now about that third party "War on Terror" ticket. . .

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-06-16 06:17:57

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#77 2005-06-16 06:33:54

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#78 2005-06-16 06:35:23

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#79 2005-06-16 06:49:27

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#80 2005-06-16 06:55:41

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#81 2005-06-16 07:06:47

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#82 2005-06-16 07:13:48

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#83 2005-06-16 07:18:23

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#84 2005-06-16 08:13:50

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#85 2005-06-16 08:16:41

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#86 2005-06-16 08:22:46

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#87 2005-06-16 08:22:49

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#88 2005-06-16 08:24:56

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#89 2005-06-16 08:40:15

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#90 2005-06-16 08:48:08

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#91 2005-06-16 09:18:37

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#92 2005-06-16 09:23:40

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#93 2005-06-16 09:31:35

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#94 2005-06-16 10:00:41

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#95 2005-06-16 10:20:29

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#96 2005-06-16 10:26:05

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#97 2005-06-16 10:26:50

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#98 2005-06-16 10:29:11

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#99 2005-06-16 10:33:30

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#100 2005-06-16 10:48:47

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer